In the last two sessions, the Los Gatos Town Council approved two housing developments: the San Jose Water Company's subdivision on Reservoir Road and the Sobrato Corporation's development on Winchester. While these two projects are different in scope and size, they share several characteristics.

* Both projects were rejected by the Los Gatos Planning Commission.

* Both encountered objections by community members on the basis of land use, incompatibility with Los Gatos and the density of housing units on the land. One, the Sobrato project, has 26 units per acre, the highest density in the town.

* High profile land use attorneys and consultants (lobbyists) supported both applicants in their appeal to the council.

Council members stated their reasons for overturning the planning commission's rulings. Some made sense; some did not. I would like you to consider some other possible explanations:

* Both of these are indeed wonderful projects and the planning commission was just out of touch with the community.

* We have a pro-development majority on council that favors high-density developments.

* The town has a housing shortage and it is all right to alter the character of the town to solve this problem.

* Consultants (lobbyists) can influence the council.

* Attorneys can intimidate the council.

These may be all right or all wrong. But when your actions are questionable there, will be questions of bias, undue influence or bad judgment.

At its next meeting, on Feb. 2, the council will hear a request from McCarthy, the developer of a hillside subdivision on the Guadalupe College property.

Mr. McCarthy, accompanied by his attorney, will request that he be exempt from part of the hillside standards, which are up for approval by the council. His request may include exemption to the maximum house size (6,000-square feet) and the amount of a house that can be visible (25 percent).

The basis for the request is that he has done a favor to the town by replacing Guadalupe College with six houses. I doubt he will mention that he acquired this property at a bargain price and that he stands to double or triple his investment.

Previously, his requests to the planning commission were denied. Perhaps, the outcome will help you to answer the multiple-choice question above.

Arthur J. Bonner

Los Gatos

Soldier overseas
answers back
with explanation

This is my response to letters in the Jan. 14 Los Gatos Weekly-Times. When I compared the black plague and terrorism, I was comparing the capability of each to create lasting and devastating amounts of death and fear. I insist on knowing what determines ignorance? Isn't ignorance another word people use to try to sound intellectual and intelligent?

And then again what is intelligence. To you it may be book smarts, to me it's more than that. To me intelligence is the ability to react in a split second; to see a problem and fix it in a second; to see beyond the normal in the heat of the moment and not analyze it for years like a politician, but to act on it. Please note that in America you have the luxury of learning from books and other media. I too had that luxury, but have experienced the learning experience of real life in the real world.

Now for those of you talking about weapons of mass destruction, retired officers on Fox News don't count as being informed. I have said it once I will say it again—don't discuss, defend or attack something you know nothing about. WMDs—or nuclear, biological and chemical weapons—are one of the main billets I hold, I have been through two defense schools and regularly give classes on these weapons. I also researched the 1988 and 1991 use of a popular nerve agent called Sarin—Saddam used these.

Let's think for a second—if you support the service member, then you support the war. And if you support the war, you support the soldier.

At no point did I declare anyone unpatriotic or say that you didn't support American service members. On the contrary, it would be hypocritical for me to say that because you pay my salary. I let people have their own opinions, that is why I am placing the evidence on the table and letting those of you with open minds read and make your own determinations and conclusions.

Lance Corporal
Tom C. Ferguson

United States Marine Corps

Library records
the main issue
in Act reaction

Robin Oliver's letter, "Citizens should judge for themselves" on Jan. 14, makes a number of thought-provoking points in critiquing previously published letters addressing the Patriot Act. Public discourse on subjects as important as national security, privacy and the Bill of Rights is imperative. To that end, I would like to expand on some of the issues mentioned in that letter.

The impetus for the Patriot Act evolved from terrorist bombings of overseas U.S. embassy's, the USS Cole and the first attack on the World Trade Center, all events preceding 9-11. Such events should certainly cause our government to put into motion efforts to respond with improved security. After all, the Constitution clearly states that security of our country and its citizens is the primary function of government. The Founding Fathers certainly had no disagreement on that issue.

In Oliver's assertion that my statement, indicating the Act is narrowly aimed toward terrorism, the letter states "there is no such statement" in the Act itself. A quick perusal of the 56,800-word, 140-page Act reveals the document description: "To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled ... " And the words terrorist and terrorism are mentioned more than 100 times—that obviously indicates the core intent of the Act.

It seems many debates about the Act invariably come around to the library issue (which allows investigators to view library records). Considering the fact that virtually all library information and research is now available online, it's hard to understand what the brouhaha is all about. If one is so concerned about absolute privacy in such matters, simply don't use government facilities (libraries) and just go to a book store and pay cash. All taxpayer supported services come with some form of loss of privacy, including the local library, which keeps detailed information of all customers who use the facility.

It is certainly accurate to state the Act is vague. Written by politicians and lawyers, it is truly confusing, convoluted and nearly impossible to understand. Are there provisions that may very well be ruled unconstitutional? No doubt. Is it overreach of government. Yes. Should it be analyzed and criticized? Certainly. Considering we are at war, am I glad our government may be overreaching instead of underreaching? Absolutely, positively.

Whether or not the Patriot Act has made us safer or not remains to be seen. All that we know for certain is our country has not been attacked since 9-11. As to the concerns about violations of the Bill of Rights, some comfort can be found in the fact that the Patriot Act contains a sunset clause of December 2005, which requires the Act to be amended, extended or "cease to have effect."

Although Benjamin Franklin said, "Those that trade freedom for safety get neither," one could speculate he would probably also agree that the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

Considering that each and every year federal and state governments pass literally thousands upon thousands of new laws, many of which diminish our most basic liberties, it's hard to get excited about whether or not some fed is looking at my library records.

Martin Kavanagh

Saratoga